Dr Tim Rideout, the author of the resolution that overturned SNP currency plans for independence, gave a talk last night on the need to replace the six Growth Commission currency tests with seven new tests. And he set out an indicative timetable for a new currency.
It's worth watching, here.
Just click through the slides. Unfortunately, I have now embedded it with Tim's help (for which I offer thanks).
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
An excellent (and inspirational) presentation by Tim at The Mitchell, Glasgow yesterday evening.
Unfortunately, the slides do not do justice to the content of his talk. He did mention that he had prepared them for a bigger screen and I had the advantage of a front row seat. Worthwhile changing your browser settings to see the detail, especially his speculative ‘timetable’ towards a Scottish currency.
I hope his meme of replacing the Silly Six (tests) with the Sensible Seven catches on.
ps. Richard; maybe correct typo in Tim’s name. His ideas are timely but his name ain’t Time.
Corrected!
Thanks for the comment
Tim Rideout’s presentation was fabulous. I was there, the line up for the event in Glasow changed – a small venue but it was packed out (I think a few people were as surprised as I was by that, and maybe indicates enthusiasm for Scots to educate themselves?), but I was pleased to see Tim presenting, and it was a good one.
I like the practicality, using the ‘tests’ to take us through the process of how introduce a new new currency, when and how. Presenting it in this way shows clearly how it will not be a shock to the system when structures are put in place in sequence.
One tiny tiny little criticism – a clearer introduction of where the ‘tests’ came from – I realise this was a last minute change to the line up, but the subject was launched into assuming we all knew it was about the growth commission recommendations and the amendment at the SNP conference. It’s contemporary enough for everyone to catch on I’m sure.
Warren Molesley and Bill Mitchell both praised Tim for his ‘perfect’ explanation. I think Tim did do everything the talk was meant to do – educate people on currency, put it in a clear Scottish context and presented a realistic plan – one that can be used by people to argue well for it (for that is really what we need, we need enough knowledge and understanding to battle against the coming onslaught).
Warren went through the basics in the theory of MMT, and he had some good ways of using analogies to make things clearer (I’ve still to chat with less knowledgeable friends to see if that’s the case).
Bill spoiled his talk with the leave the EU rant at the end – not relevant and not good advice I’d say, and not a politically neutral type of educational talk we wanted – no one is even suggesting we join the euro (except hysterical unionists), so why bring it up? The failed euro enterprise is a different discussion. The neo-liberalism of the EU is no different to other western societies – and to tell the truth I think it’ll become less neo-liberal without England leading the way. It obscured the needed education we needed and a bit irritating.
It was fascinating to listen to Warren and Bill, but their presentations were maybe a bit too theoretical, and a bit too focused on themselves. Maybe because I’d hoped for a bit more on the GND from Craig, who didn’t turn up, that I felt a bit disappointed.
One of the issues – and I’ve mentioned this to you Richard, that you don’t realise how specialist your subject is, you don’t realise how much you know and that what you find easy is not easy for other people (I still don’t understand the intricacies of taxes and accounting,,, but it might soak in one day) – is that explanations would be nice a simple then suddenly launch into relating it to something obscure (to us, the great unwashed) like market forces with attendant acronyms – meh. We need the assumption we know nothing – chances are, anything we’ve heard about from media/government is rubbish, so a definition of each thing introduced needs to be presented.
A question at the end was not answered well – the question was related to how could a obscure trolling question be answered – this is direct application of the theory – warren mumbled something, Bill’s answer boiled down to ‘they’re talking nonsense’ – all very well, but not helpful. We don’t all have time to spend twenty years studying economics, we need a way to understand enough to make logical reasoned arguments in a very very short time and to give a basic understanding to the great unwashed (sorry, still haven’t showered) that have been lied to forever. A question like this is a good way for people to be able to relate what they’ve heard to topics that maybe be brought up, in real life.
No one is going to be reading a 300-page book on economics, no one is going to read the 300-page growth commission report, or a 800-page white paper for that matter (usual caveats), people will read summaries and opinions from their usual sources. We need credible economists talking about MMT, but we need credible educators on it even more.
This sounds so critical – it was really a good presentation, I just think we could do with breaking down presentations like this by relating MMT to specific issues in future – have a narrower subject, a specific topic, and use that to describe MMT. Tim certainly stole the limelight!
a) Good for Tim
b) I suspect Craig had good reason
c) Bill is a disaster socialist and that does not help MMT, at all
d) I think your points are excellent
e) How would you pose the questions needing answering?
f) Their book is over 560 pages….
(a) Aye, good for Tim, but more importantly, very good for the rest of us that someone has stepped up to the plate!
(b) Craig I am sure had very good reason, but I am still allowed to be disappointed (mostly because in my own head I’d thought we’d get some GND stuff – in no way was that subject scheduled)
(c) Bill is a disaster. Agreed.
(d) Thank you (blushes)
(e) Well, now. People want enough information and knowledge to make a reasoned argument against/for any particular subject (or nuance of a subject) – without getting bogged down in detail – so that we: (i) are not taken in by false rhetoric, (ii) can reason with anyone trying to pass off false rhetoric as fact, (iii) can promote reasoned arguments for a healthy economy in an independent Scotland over a range of possible situations/ideologies. The questions needing answered are not mine and so it is difficult for me to imagine what might need answered. Basics – ‘what is fiat currency?’ But no one will ask this question because they have never heard of it before and likely think we still have gold standard (honestly – I bet about 70 to 80% of the population will believe this) – so a good understanding of that is needed to turn any spurious question into one where we can describe this… but the attention span of the person who is being told they are wrong… about 5 seconds? People also avoid bringing up economic subjects (because none of us know much about it) so the new currency is a good way to start the conversation… there are too many things to consider on this for me right now. Making the subject accessible, non-confrontational, and interesting would be good.
(f) ah, even more unreadable. I think it was Bill’s own book that was 300 pages that was being promoted.
We need to ditch the MMT label, can we have a specialised form for Scotland called something boring like Scottish Economic Structure, do you think? Saying its specialised means it can still be based on MMT without actually using that phrase, and then can incorporate some of the building blocks we need to guide a solid base to an economic structure that would be nice to have in place before the neo-liberals get a hold of it and wreck everything?
I think that much more useful
Ask Common Weal to host?
“c) Bill is a disaster socialist and that does not help MMT, at all”
Push comes to shove I’d guess you have more fundamental common ground than differences. At this stage in the promotion of the understanding of MMT it’s early days to fuss about nuances.
But maybe you see the differences as more basic. Your enemy’s enemy is your friend and it matters not a jot who is in favour of disaster it’s coming our way anyway. Economic in the near term and who knows what else to follow.
I’d love to have to choose at the ballot box between two interpretations of the finer points of the implementation of left progressive policies. In my dreams.
We agree on MMT
His politics are a disaster for it
I have modified the Prezi to correct the issues of the italic text not being very legible and made most of the text significantly larger. Thanks for the compliments! It was entirely my intention to demystify this whole subject and bring it down to the level of the person in the street. I have said on many occasions it is really not difficult – a Central Bank for example could be one person with a PC, bank accounting software and a direct connection into the inter-bank payment system. All you need to be able to do is add debits and credits to accounts, and there are not even many accounts to manage as you need one each per commercial bank, plus maybe one each for every government department.
Always worth remembering that the way to ‘become an expert’ it to learn the jargon of the target ‘priestly caste’, and then to ensure you never say anything again that anyone outside the profession can understand. Because they don’t understand they will assume you are a genius and thus an expert (until proven otherwise by e.g. 2008 🙂 )
Tim Rideout says:
“It was entirely my intention to demystify this whole subject and bring it down to the level of the person in the street.”
You and Richard both. Although not everything can be brought down to Ladybird Book level it is great to see economics being discussed in words. This makes it accessible.
As soon as I see algebraic shorthand and numbers I suspect somebody is trying to hoodwink me. (And I’m not innumerate…I used to be able to do quadratic equations and calculus. I just could never see the point and I still don’t)
Sorry to have not made it for your presentation, Tim. I’m looking forward to the film from Phantom as promised somewhere today. And it was good to meet you. Nice to put face to name in this virtual world.
The film will be up soon…
Despite being a non-academic, I really enjoyed last nights presentation. Yes it was a bit over my head at times but that’s down to my ignorance. The only thing to do is to find out more.
Many, many thanks to all the speakers and hope to see them in Scotland in the summer!!
Hi
We’d really appreciate the chance of having such a face to face tutorial with your good self, Tim Rideout, and YesHighland.
Can we correspond by email to explore the logistics and diary pressures?
Kind regards
Iain Bruce
Email me Iain and I will forward to Tim
I was also there last night and Contrary`s summary, above, is pretty much spot on.
The question from the floor that neither Bill nor Warren (both arrived from different continents the day before, understandably getting a little wearied by the end) answered well was along the lines of “Can you give me a straightforward laypersons answer that I can give to people who say to me `but you can`t just print or create loads of money without there then being rampant inflation`”……….any such people, especially if elderly, obviously immediately conjuring up historical images of turning up to pay for your groceries with a wheelbarrow of notes, and therefore instantly agin` the concept.
[…] is the video of Dr Tim Rideout's talk on why the six tests for a Scottish currency proposed by the Growth Commission have to be replaced with seven better tests, made this […]
I think that discussions of MMT can get bogged down because they start with money. I understand it better if I start with Lionel Robbins 1932 definition of economics as being ” … the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”. The constraint on the government is thus the level and quality of resources (the means) available to it. The answer to the lady’s question is then that we need a government which does not create more money than the level of resources available to it requires
But money does come into it
Robbins approach meant it was ignored
And that was wrong
Agreed but not as “scarce means”